JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. Defendants 1, 4 and 5, who are the appellants in this second appeal, challenge the decrees of both the subordinate courts granting a redemption in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of both the courts below are that the mortgagee committed default in payment of the revenue due on the property and that it resulted in a revenue sale of the properties of the mortgagor. There is also a finding that after the revenue sale, the property has come back in the possession of the original mortgagee. Therefore in my opinion according to the decisions reported in Karthiayani v. Parameswara Panicker and Others ( 1958 KLJ 1057 ) and Kekkunnaya v. Chathukutty Nambiar ( 1958 KLT 712 : 1958 KLJ 565 ) the principles of S.90 of the Trust Act applied and the mortgagee who has purchased the properties again is restored to the original position of mortgagee and the mortgagor is entitled to redemption. In this view, the conclusion arrived at by both the courts are perfectly correct and especially so in view of the decisions referred to above. 2. Mr. Sivasankara Panicker contended that admittedly the revenue due upon the mortgaged property was only one chakram and the mortgagor defaulted to pay the revenue on certain other properties which were not the subject of the mortgage, and it was because of the default of the mortgagor also and the mortgagee that the properties were sold and therefore the learned counsel contended that the principles laid down in the decisions, especially in Karthiayani v. Parameswara Panicker and others ( 1958 KLJ 1057 ) are not applicable to the circumstances of this case. 3. It is not possible for me to accept this contention for two reasons. (1) I was a party to the decision along with Mr. Justice Joseph in Karthiayani v. Parameswara Panicker and others ( 1958 KLJ 1057 ), and (2) that a similar point was raised before us on that occasion also and we did not accept the proposition for which Mr. Sivasankara Panicker is now contending. In fact in the decision in Karthiayani v. Parameswara Panicker and others ( 1958 KLJ 1057 ) we have observed: "However, it is clear from Ext. D that besides the tax on item No. 1 the tax on some other property belonging to the mortgagor had not been paid. Sivasankara Panicker is now contending. In fact in the decision in Karthiayani v. Parameswara Panicker and others ( 1958 KLJ 1057 ) we have observed: "However, it is clear from Ext. D that besides the tax on item No. 1 the tax on some other property belonging to the mortgagor had not been paid. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the revenue sale was brought about partly on account or the mortgagor's default also and the principle of S.90 of the Indian Trusts Act was not, therefore, applicable to this case. So long as defendants 3 and 4 are defaulters, it is not open for them to contend that the revenue sale was not brought about by their default." In view of these observations, it is not possible for me to accept the contention now raised by Mr. Sivasankara Panicker. Therefore, it follows that the decrees and judgments of both the subordinate courts allowing redemption will have to be confirmed. 4. But Mr. Sivasankara Panicker made an appeal that his client should be held to be entitled to get from the mortgagor the sum of Rs. 13-9 chakrams 10 cash, minus one chakram which is the revenue payable on the suit property, from the mortgagor. This argument is advanced for this reason, namely, that for the revenue due on the other properties of the mortgagor and also for a small portion of the revenue due on the suit property, namely, one chakram alone, the suit property was sold and the mortgagor plaintiff has got the benefit of a right to redemption of this property for no other reason than that the mortgagees have become the purchasers finally. Though this argument in my opinion is not sound in law, and this request is opposed by Mr. Mohammed, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, in the circumstances of this case, I think it is equitable to permit the mortgagee to get the benefit of this amount also. Therefore one of the items which should be paid by the plaintiff, in addition to the amounts mentioned by both the subordinate courts, will be this sum of Rs. 13-8 chakrams 10 cash also. The plaintiff will deposit this amount also in the Trial Court within six weeks from to-day. There will be no order as to costs in this second appeal. No leave.